Alliance and the Agnostic Argument

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Alliance
So over the 4th I was arguing with my friends. One came up with a proposition that I have been thinking about for a while. Our argument was unseccesful. I wanted to see if this generated some discussion here.

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

For the most part, I would agree...for the most part.

Alliance
My counter arguemt was this.

1. Every religion thinks its god is correct.

2. Religion often falls along the lines of what your parents were. Its more installed than discoverd by the majority (not everyone).

3. This means really shows that no god is more right or special than another, meaning that if one exists, its one big pan-god or pan-pantheon.

4. Religons were invented by man to answer questions they could not explain. So really when it comes down to it, the likelyhood that any god we have described is correct is very low.

My counter argumnet: While no one has absolute proof yes or no, the fact that gods and religions are invented (when i say invented, I mean written about or spoken about) shows that:

1. There is no proof for a god, but there is proof that humans like the idea of a god and like to create them (write mythological compilations such as the bible etc)

2. This leads me to believe that humans want to believe in a god, regardless of proof. THis artificailly enhances the "probalility" that a god exists.

3. Since humans have a poor track record on creating gods, I say that while there is no absolute proof wither way, there is a substantial amount of proof that humans make up god, making religion a correct societal observance of a fictional concept.

4. FOr many people who like functional definions and don't bother going into every absolute philosophical detail, this proof justifies the fact that the proof of god is so low, that to many it becomes fact, hence athiesm.

Conclusion: As long as athiests admit that in absolute terms there is no correct answer....athiesm is justifiable.

Mindship
Understood. If I were to simplify...

1. As far as empirical evidence goes, there is no proof of God's existence; indeed, operationally defined as a nonempirical entity, there can never be proof of God's existence.
This is not good for Theism.

2. On the same token: there is no empirical evidence that lack of empirical evidence = evidence of lack. While the burden of proof does remain with Theism, and a "default position" of No evidence = No God is reasonable, it is Not absolutely conclusive. This is not good for Atheism.

3. Based on #1 and #2, the only definite conclusion one can come to (IMO) is: "I don't know."

Or as I would rephrase it: Agnosticism is, intellectually, the most honest position.

Alliance
I would cinsider #1 a more detrimental point.

i guess then, is is acceptable to have a functional definiton of religion, ignore that fact that the existance of god can never be empiracally proved or disproved and proclaim thyself an athiest based on the points i mentioned above.

Regret
I would consider that the ramifications if an atheist is wrong could be steep, it would be better to consider the option of agnosticism if only to make a hedge bet. That possibility must play some role in the debate.

Alliance
I consider the social ramifications of living a "blind" life to be much steeper as we actually have evidence of real life events.

I don't cinsider it an essential part to the debate becuase:

1. It assumes religion as it is written is correct. It assumes the existance of a place of suffering or "hell," judgement by the divine being. These arguments are totally aribtrary and my not relfect to position of the actual "divine bieng if it exists."

2. Its another totally immersuable concept which doesnt have any impact on wherther a divine bieng exists or not.

3. Hell is likely concept made up to deter people from going against the religion. Religion, for the reasons I have stated, is not proof a divine bieng exists. Its a social structure that was created around a percieved divine presence.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
I consider the social ramifications of living a "blind" life to be much steeper as we actually have evidence of real life events.

I don't cinsider it an essential part to the debate becuase:

1. It assumes religion as it is written is correct. It assumes the existance of a place of suffering or "hell," judgement by the divine being. These arguments are totally aribtrary and my not relfect to position of the actual "divine bieng if it exists."

2. Its another totally immersuable concept which doesnt have any impact on wherther a divine bieng exists or not.

3. Hell is likely concept made up to deter people from going against the religion. Religion, for the reasons I have stated, is not proof a divine bieng exists. Its a social structure that was created around a percieved divine presence.

That would be an atheist view, but if we are debating from an unbiased stance the arguments should not only come from the atheist view, but should consider the theists views as well.

Alliance
Not really. I wasn't assuming athiesm was correct either. I was assuming a neutral standpoint. An agnostic one.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Not really. I wasn't assuming athiesm was correct either. I was assuming a neutral standpoint. An agnostic one.

Then considerations of the theist side must be of equal relevance as the considerations of the atheist side. Hell can be considered a possibility.

DigiMark007
As far as the idea of "God" goes, you have some points.

But not every belief system is predicated on a God(s)....just most of them. Some simply work with what they can understand, and accept what they can't. Take science for example....not what we normally think of as religion, but a system of beliefs nonetheless. Most of them leave the question of God to others, and simply work with what they know.

Issues of faith in a God will come up with those who are religious, but I realize you are working from an empyrical standpoint, so it has little bearing on this discussion.

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
Then considerations of the theist side must be of equal relevance as the considerations of the atheist side. Hell can be considered a possibility.

I dont understand. Whats your proof?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But not every belief system is predicated on a God(s)....just most of them. Some simply work with what they can understand, and accept what they can't. Take science for example....not what we normally think of as religion, but a system of beliefs nonetheless. Most of them leave the question of God to others, and simply work with what they know.
Anything can be considered a system of beliefs, for example football regulations.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Alliance
Anything can be considered a system of beliefs, for example football regulations.

Fair enough.....not sure whether this is you agreeing with me or refuting me though. confused

I'm sure we believe different things (from your posts that I've read, we do), but I think we're essentially in agreement here in this thread, so I wasn't trying to disprove you, just provide a different way of looking at the subject.

And we could argue the philisophical minutia of your claims, because I may have a few small problems with it, but they wouldn't be terribly important. I agree that you can't prove and/or disprove the idea of "God", at least in a Western-religion sense of the word God as some form of an omnipotent being. And I think that's the heart of your statement, so we're the same at least in that respect.

Storm
To me, the means by which the belief was arrived at, matter. A person can arrive at a belief (whether it' s theism, atheism or agnosticism) through irrational means, while another person can arrive at a belief through rational means.

Alliance
I have a strong belief that rational means are greater than irrational ones.

Mindship
Absolutely. On the other hand, Detriment #1 being in a tougher position does not automatically make Detriment #2 more viable. Both are still in no-man's land. Plus, the viability of Detriment #1 improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic.


Absolutely, hence what I call "Practical Agnosticism," the essence of which is this: since for me, personally, I-Don't-Know isn't "good enough," what other criteria might I use to build a more complete map of reality? Answer: utility.
This line of reasoning does not sit well with many people. They see this as "an easy way out," when it is anything but. Years of study and evaluation went into coming to this conclusion; I didn't one day just say, "Well, I don't know, so la-de-da, I'll do this," and that's that.
IMO, a simpler way to express opposition to Practical Agnosticism is to say that for them, personally, I-Don't-Know is just fine. Period. This way, no assumptions are made about how I came to my conclusion.

Shakyamunison
Agnostic Argument

An agnostic cannot have an argument. laughing

Agnostic - somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Agnostic Argument

An agnostic cannot have an argument. laughing

Agnostic - somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Where does it say an agnostic cannot have an argument?


Anyways, the argument presented is basically true, since there is indeed no proof of either side, but you can also believe in something that is just pretty liely (like ones own existance for example). Truth though is that every rational being has to at least agree that agnostics have a point.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where does it say an agnostic cannot have an argument?...

Prove it. stick out tongue

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove it. stick out tongue

That was a question...as the question mark implied, you don't have to prove a question.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
I dont understand. Whats your proof?

It doesn't need proof. If the idea that some form of God may exist is being considered due to lack of evidence against it, then the idea that some form of hell may exist is also being considered. The reason is the same as the reason for the idea that some form of God exists.

I think I just decided Agnostics are worthless...

They are not cynical or skeptical enough. Given our arguments thus far, they should hold an arbitrary view on anything that is not shown as fact without evidence that it is not. That is stupid, they should be atheist.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
That was a question...as the question mark implied, you don't have to prove a question.

OK

If you are an agnostic and you have an argument, you now have an opinion and are no longer an agnostic. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK

If you are an agnostic and you have an argument, you now have an opinion and are no longer an agnostic. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Where does it say agnostics do not have an opinion. let me get your definition there: " somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained" ...hmm that is an opinion to begin with..oh boy, you seem to be wrong.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where does it say agnostics do not have an opinion. let me get your definition there: " somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained" ...hmm that is an opinion to begin with..oh boy, you seem to be wrong.

You have totally missed my argument. Consider sarcasm...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have totally missed my argument. Consider sarcasm...

Sarcasm, let me see...nope, no, still doesn't make any sense. But, I give you a chance, give your argument (I hope you will manage to make it look like mine, I mean you are a pretty good dodger, change opinions like other people do with underwear). I shall listen.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sarcasm, let me see...nope, no, still doesn't make any sense. But, I give you a chance, give your argument (I hope you will manage to make it look like mine, I mean you are a pretty good dodger, change opinions like other people do with underwear). I shall listen.

OK whatever. Next.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK whatever. Next.

Just present your opinion. You failed to make it clear before, so, try again, I'd like to see what you actually meant when you posted:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Agnostic Argument

An agnostic cannot have an argument. laughing

Agnostic - somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just present your opinion. You failed to make it clear before, so, try again, I'd like to see what you actually meant when you posted:

It was nothing more then a joke. One that Alliance would get. It is nothing to argue or insult over.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was nothing more then a joke. One that Alliance would get. It is nothing to argue or insult over.

Actually, it is quite something to argue over, since it was presented in a very believable manner. Anyways, now what was it sarcasm, a joke...what? It's just useless to talk to you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, it is quite something to argue over, since it was presented in a very believable manner. Anyways, now what was it sarcasm, a joke...what? It's just useless to talk to you.

"It's just useless to talk to you." Now that is an attitude that I would like to encourage from you.

Agnostic Argument is an oxymoron.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"It's just useless to talk to you." Now that is an attitude that I would like to encourage from you.

Agnostic Argument is an oxymoron.

WHAT THE ****.

Make up your mind, so far we had three versions:

1. Your original post was in one way or another sarcasm.


Bullshit, I think we can all agree on that, could have been a nice way out with someone who can't read though


2. It was a joke solely for Alliance.

Hmm, I guess possible, jokes work in mysterious ways, then again, how should that one have worked.

3. You actually still believe that as seen in your last post "Agnostic Argument is an oxymoron"

Most likely true, so, will we go on in circles, or can you just agree that you are wrong and that you should just leave the RF for good?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
WHAT THE ****.

Make up your mind, so far we had three versions:

1. Your original post was in one way or another sarcasm.


Bullshit, I think we can all agree on that, could have been a nice way out with someone who can't read though


2. It was a joke solely for Alliance.

Hmm, I guess possible, jokes work in mysterious ways, then again, how should that one have worked.

3. You actually still believe that as seen in your last post "Agnostic Argument is an oxymoron"

Most likely true, so, will we go on in circles, or can you just agree that you are wrong and that you should just leave the RF for good?

Get a grip. laughing

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Get a grip. laughing

Look, this is a serious forum. So when you putr out an opinion like that you should be prepared to debate on it and maybe back it up.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, this is a serious forum. So when you putr out an opinion like that you should be prepared to debate on it and maybe back it up.

In general Agnostic means that a person believes that a topic (generally god) cannot be proven. In effect, they say "I don't know".

How does it feel to argue with someone who does not know? I don't think you can argue with someone who does not know. All you can do is insult the person.

Thank you for proving my point.

Bardock42

Shakyamunison

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you sure about that? confused laughing

too an extend I can be sure about anything. Since you seem to not be an agnostic you can be sure about the existence of what you read and such, so, why am I wrong? How is my argument flawed? Or am I maybe right and you just try to dodge,...again...to not look stupid?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
too an extend I can be sure about anything. Since you seem to not be an agnostic you can be sure about the existence of what you read and such, so, why am I wrong? How is my argument flawed? Or am I maybe right and you just try to dodge,...again...to not look stupid?

I would, if I wasn't so tired, keep on and on with not knowing what you are talking about or asking are you sure. You can go on, feel free. I really don't care. I'm done.

I used to be an agnostic, it dose not lead to happiness.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would, if I wasn't so tired, keep on and on with not knowing what you are talking about or asking are you sure. You can go on, feel free. I really don't care. I'm done.

I used to be an agnostic, it dose not lead to happiness.

I am an agnostic and I'm pretty happy right now. Well, I think that's all due part of me still being young and youthful. But, to me, admitting to agnosticism is another way of saying 'I am only human, and I do not have all the answers.' My father isn't sure what to call himself as of yet, a theist or an atheist, but he thinks very much like an agnostic, and much my views are influenced by his own critical thinking.

In order to find some happiness, an individual needs some sense of purpose. It just all depends on the view of that individual's idea of serving a purpose. So agnosticism can lead to happiness if an individual finds the purpose to serve in agnosticism, whatever that purpose may be.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I am an agnostic and I'm pretty happy right now. Well, I think that's all due part of me still being young and youthful. But, to me, admitting to agnosticism is another way of saying 'I am only human, and I do not have all the answers.' My father isn't sure what to call himself as of yet, a theist or an atheist, but he thinks very much like an agnostic, and much my views are influenced by his own critical thinking.

In order to find some happiness, an individual needs some sense of purpose. It just all depends on the view of that individual's idea of serving a purpose. So agnosticism can lead to happiness if an individual finds the purpose to serve in agnosticism, whatever that purpose may be.

You are correct, but there is no purpose in agnosticism. I could be wrong, maybe it was just not there for me.

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Alliance
So over the 4th I was arguing with my friends. One came up with a proposition that I have been thinking about for a while. Our argument was unseccesful. I wanted to see if this generated some discussion here.

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

You make a good point according to human reasoning, but Scripturally speaking, God says He already has revealed Himself to you agnostics and that you willfully choose to suppress Him.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify His as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:20-21

"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."

Romans 1:19

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You make a good point according to human reasoning, but Scripturally speaking, God says He already has revealed Himself to you agnostics and that you willfully choose to suppress Him.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify His as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:20-21

"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."

Romans 1:19

I get a totally different meaning from those quotes. You and I should take care of the Earth, that is what I think that is saying.

Mindship
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
...So agnosticism can lead to happiness if an individual finds the purpose to serve in agnosticism, whatever that purpose may be.

Maybe "purpose" isn't the right word. "Meaning," perhaps, or "understanding," an acknowledgment of limits to human reasoning, and what that means in terms of the human condition, what choices a person would therefore make.

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I get a totally different meaning from those quotes. You and I should take care of the Earth, that is what I think that is saying.

Agnostics claim "They don't know if God exists" those verses show "He has revealed Himself to them by the things (Creation) that He made so they are without excuse. That is the message here. No excuse. They know there is a God they choose to disregard the things He has shown them. It's that simple Shaky.

Mindship
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Agnostics claim "They don't know if God exists" those verses show "He has revealed Himself to them by the things (Creation) that He made so they are without excuse. That is the message here. No excuse. They know there is a God they choose to disregard the things He has shown them. It's that simple Shaky.

Perhaps not.

IMO, the purpose of this thread is to determine the status of God's existence via reasoning, especially reasoning about the absence of empirical evidence. So even if Scripture is legit (and we know your position on that), it is, as one might say, "inadmissible" relative to this particular discussion.

To insist that Scritpure is relevant in this thread suggests a lack of respect for this thread's purpose, a stance not in keeping with God's infinite tolerance and compassion.

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps not.

IMO, the purpose of this thread is to determine the status of God's existence via reasoning, especially reasoning about the absence of empirical evidence. So even if Scripture is legit (and we know your position on that), it is, as one might say, "inadmissible" relative to this particular discussion.

To insist that Scritpure is relevant in this thread suggests a lack of respect for this thread's purpose, a stance not in keeping with God's infinite tolerance and compassion.

Great, so reasoning is only according to man's own opinions on this thread. Please post that disclaimer up front next time. Thank You. smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Agnostics claim "They don't know if God exists" those verses show "He has revealed Himself to them by the things (Creation) that He made so they are without excuse. That is the message here. No excuse. They know there is a God they choose to disregard the things He has shown them. It's that simple Shaky.

Maybe it is just like gravity. You don't have to believe in it to stick to the Earth. However I think that most agnostics are rejecting Christianity, not God or even Jesus. All they are saying is, we don't know. I was once an agnostic, but then I found happiness in the Lotus sutra. It is your beliefs that they doubt, but they will cherish the truth once they find it.

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe it is just like gravity. You don't have to believe in it to stick to the Earth. However I think that most agnostics are rejecting Christianity, not God or even Jesus. All they are saying is, we don't know. I was once an agnostic, but then I found happiness in the Lotus sutra. It is your beliefs that they doubt, but they will cherish the truth once they find it.

I disagree. It is the scripture they refuse. It is the God of the Bible they are rejecting. He says He has revealled Himself to them. That's the only point I am trying so hard to make here...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I disagree. It is the scripture they refuse. It is the God of the Bible they are rejecting. He says He has revealled Himself to them. That's the only point I am trying so hard to make here...

No, you are doing a bad job at convincing people. Don't cast away your responsibility. They are rejecting you and your arrogance in believing that the bible is some kind of magic.

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are doing a bad job at convincing people. Don't cast away your responsibility. They are rejecting you and your arrogance in believing that the bible is some kind of magic.

Your right Shaky, please entertain my newly posted Thread. smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Your right Shaky, please entertain my newly posted Thread. smile

I did, and I hope you will still call me friend after you read it. I am your friend even though we do not agree. That is life...

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I did, and I hope you will still call me friend after you read it. I am your friend even though we do not agree. That is life...

You are ok Shaky. I am still leaving the forum. I just wanted to wish you the best. There is very little hope here in my opinion or reasons for me to wast precious time here. A few might see the light but I think many have already went deep down the other road. Take care...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You are ok Shaky. I am still leaving the forum. I just wanted to wish you the best. There is very little hope here in my opinion or reasons for me to wast precious time here. A few might see the light but I think many have already went deep down the other road. Take care...

Good luck. But remember, who did Jesus fellowship with?

However, I do believe there is hope in some of these people becoming Buddhists. laughing

Alliance
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I disagree. It is the scripture they refuse. It is the God of the Bible they are rejecting. He says He has revealled Himself to them. That's the only point I am trying so hard to make here...

You just don't get it. The Bible as non-fiction is like any other religous text to you is non-fiction. 2/3 of the world does not reference the bible at all. You are in the clear minority. This is a pan-theistic forum. People of all religions are welcome. THis is not the "Chirstian Conversion Forum" This is not the "You must belive the Bilbe forum" Many Chistians don't even take the bible literally. Your opinon is in the vast minority and simply stating that your opinon is correct becuase it is correct is not going to change anyones mind about you.

This forum is about the discussion of religion in the context of plurality. If you don't believe religion is pluralistic, you are going to have some societal limitations when discussiong religion. This is not our fault.

THis thread was about a logical support/or denial of an argument. You don't have to participate. "My God says this: ____" does not mean you won the debate.

The Omega

Bardock42
Well it's easy, we agnostics just see that it is not the evidence that decides what is real, but what is in fact real is real.

We just admit to the fact that we don't know for sure, and I believe you actually realize that as well.

Regret

Alliance
Originally posted by Bardock42
We just admit to the fact that we don't know for sure, and I believe you actually realize that as well.

I do as an absolute. But for my daily life to me the evidence is so one sided I feel I can say with some degree of confidence that athiesm is also an acceptable viewpoint.

debbiejo
But you do have to admit don't you the possibility of something not yet discovered????.........Even through sciences..

Alliance
Lets look at the probalility that god exists.

0=god cannot exist, 1=god exists.

0 or 1 can never be achieved in this probablilty game given current information. Simply we dont know.

I'm a reductionist, I believe things can be represented by simpler testable systems.

If the actual probability that god exists is 0.1 or 0.00001, To me, thats close enough to 0 for a functional everyday basis. This is only acceptable if I admit that in the purest terms, atheism is not provable.

debbiejo
I'm not talking about a god as you would know it......but some sort of intelligence behind the scenes....

Alliance
to me god equals consciousness.

If its unconscious...the probability that it exists goes up.

YOu know I feel you have not adequately explained this "intelligence"

debbiejo
I will try tomorrow..........though..........things are not always what they seem to be as we all know........there are many things that are only now being studied.......and it seems to have some operating factor to what ever it is.

Alliance
Physical Laws are not indicitave on intelligence.

debbiejo
Why not?...........Couldn't anything be possible?

Mindship
Regarding, "Why Agnosticism?" cool
For purely personal purposes only (thus, burden of proof is irrelevant):
Theism: There is a God ... I think.
Atheism: There is No God ... I think.
Agnosticism: I Don't Know ... of this I am certain!
Practical Agnosticism: So now what do I do?

Regarding "intelligence behind the scenes" wink ...
1. Could be a projection of what we humans want to see.
2. Could instead be a physical "meta-law" of self-organization, an overall synergistic effect from all physical laws functioning in unison. Defined empirically (?), it could theoretically be tested for.
3. Could be an infinite number of spacetimes (again, theoretically testable), in which case a well-ordered, biofriendly universe like ours arose simply because, sooner or later, it would.

I thought this thread was getting too quiet. rolling on floor laughing

Alliance
Originally posted by Mindship
Regarding "intelligence behind the scenes" wink ...
1. Could be a projection of what we humans want to see.
Likely a big positive.
Originally posted by Mindship
2. Could instead be a physical "meta-law" of self-organization, an overall synergistic effect from all physical laws functioning in unison. Defined empirically (?), it could theoretically be tested for
3. Could be an infinite number of spacetimes (again, theoretically testable), in which case a well-ordered, biofriendly universe like ours arose simply because, sooner or later, it would. Does this imply "intelligence" there's nothing really anything smart about it. Its just convinient and helpful to life. Life arose because the universe was freindly towards life. The universe is not tailor made to life. We arpse because we had the right characteristics to survive/form in this universe.

Mindship
Darn, I left this part out (a modern-day variation of one of St. Tommy's "ontological arguments"wink...

4. However... IF an infinite number of spacetimes/universes exist, with an infinite set of possibilities, could not, in one such universe, "God" exist? And if so--then God being "God"--wouldn't "He" then extend into all the universes, perhaps even adding an "intelligently designed" spacetime here and there?

(Personally, I'm not keen on ontological arguments, but I'm curious as to what others make of this).

The Omega

Regret

Alliance
Any other opinons?

DigiMark007
Bumping because the first 3-4 posts from Alliance and Mindship back on page 1 are very well-done, and I agree with the majority of what they posit.

Originally posted by Alliance
Conclusion: As long as athiests admit that in absolute terms there is no correct answer....athiesm is justifiable.

Which would be my only caveat, but Alliance put it well. Nothing can be proven in absolutist terms...our existence and everything we experience is subjective so there is no objectively definable way to prove something. This can be used as a cheap "hiding spot" for those whose beliefs don't stand up to rational argument (i.e. faith) or it can be a small concession while we agree that there are many things that are reasonable to treat as factual based on evidence.

chickenlover98
not to cockride digi but i agree again. i agree with alliance and mindship on some points, but then again i have some insights.

there not be any definitive way to know who is right. i have 0 logical proof to the contrary of atheism. there is likely no god, and if there was a god in most religions you wuldnt get into heaven anyways. this way i live without obligations to a sect i dont believe in and i dont have to use my time praying for a maybe. life should be lived without fear of torture(hell) which i plan on doing

Jbill311
If god used "advanced science" then how did he come into being in the first place? Intelligence comes into existence late in the time line of the universe- and any god would first have to develop further than we have- which seems unlikely, especially if it 'created' us.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Jbill311
If god used "advanced science" then how did he come into being in the first place? Intelligence comes into existence late in the time line of the universe- and any god would first have to develop further than we have- which seems unlikely, especially if it 'created' us. that doesnt seem likely. dont ever say im arguing in gods favor, but technically he would be following sciences rules or maybe not. according to most people god is above this universe, which means he can ignore all the rules that govern this universe, but he cant. cause he isnt real

DigiMark007
Originally posted by chickenlover98
not to cockride digi but i agree again. i agree with alliance and mindship on some points, but then again i have some insights.

there not be any definitive way to know who is right. i have 0 logical proof to the contrary of atheism. there is likely no god, and if there was a god in most religions you wuldnt get into heaven anyways. this way i live without obligations to a sect i dont believe in and i dont have to use my time praying for a maybe. life should be lived without fear of torture(hell) which i plan on doing

It's ok, cock ride all you want.

313

...

A writer I respect greatly (Michael Shermer) wrote an article on the subject of agnosticism at one point and made some important distinctions:

Atheism, as it is commonly used, often times means "the denial of God" which is philosophically and scientifically untenable to maintain, as opposed to "a non-belief in God" which is much less absolutist. One would have to clarify the distinction so as not to associate with that, and many do (like myself).

As a statement of scientific validity, agnosticism is the only tenable position, but means such a wide variety of things (usually, that one is "open" to the possibility of a god or uncertain) that it is usually easier to simply call oneself a theist or an atheist.

Therefore, he called himself nontheist as a matter of personal choice (meaning, no belief in a God or gods, not the absolute denial of a God) and considered himself agnostic as a statement of universal observation. Because saying "I have no belief in a God" is different than "I believe there is no God." Subtle difference, granted, but present.

I would tend to agree, and have taken to calling myself non-religious more often than atheist, simply because I have to choose between trudging through this kind of semantic mire to make myself understood, or allowing others to make false assumptions about my beliefs.

Bardock42
Alliance and Mindship. grr.

I debate my ass off for 4 pages, but it's Alliance and Mindship.

Assholes.

DigiMark007
laughing out loud

Sorry, only read the first 10 posts or so before skipping to this page.

Bardock42
Originally posted by DigiMark007
laughing out loud

Sorry, only read the first 10 posts or so before skipping to this page. That's alright.

Anyways, I read it here again and I keep reading the "You can't prove a negative" line...but that's not actually true. Obviously there are multiple ways one could sufficiently prove a negative statement. There certainly is in mathematics. Maybe a "negative" has to be defined more exactly though.

Mark Question
Originally posted by Alliance

Conclusion: As long as athiests admit that in absolute terms there is no correct answer....athiesm is justifiable.


And the wiser course IMO.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's alright.

Anyways, I read it here again and I keep reading the "You can't prove a negative" line...but that's not actually true. Obviously there are multiple ways one could sufficiently prove a negative statement. There certainly is in mathematics. Maybe a "negative" has to be defined more exactly though. i did the same thing as digi embarrasment

Mindship
Originally posted by Bardock42
Alliance and Mindship. grr.

I debate my ass off for 4 pages, but it's Alliance and Mindship.

Assholes.
laughing out loud
Man I wish I had a dime for everytime I posted (what I think, anyway, is) a great response and it gets totally ignored.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nothing can be proven in absolutist terms...our existence and everything we experience is subjective so there is no objectively definable way to prove something. This can be used as a cheap "hiding spot"I prefer the term, Wiggle-Room Philosophy cool .

Personally, I see no harm to WRPs (and arguably some gain), as long as it is fashioned rationally. For example, it is rational--if not imperative--that a WRP incorporate the findings of empirical science.

leonheartmm
agnostics with atheistis inclinations seem the most logical to me. its the same thing russel found hard to endorse his entire life. am i an agnostic or an atheist. the problem with being agnostic is that you give out a SENSE of giving BOTH{the theistis and the atheistic} arguments equal preference. saying that neither one can disprove the other. however, that is misleading because, unlike atheism{complete absence of diety} THEISM has many types however it doesnt have any true arguments on its side other than the argument from negetive evidence{i.e. no1 can actually DISPROVE the presence of a characteristic diety}. this however, is not reason enough to give it as much relevance than the beleif in the lack of a diety{all observations point to such} which is actually based on direct evidence. people might be just as likely to beleive in the existance of the invisible purple unicorn, and yet, no1 wud put that beleif on PAR with the non beleif in god. so basically, you shud say, im an agnostic {since we ULTIMATELY cant disprove with absolute certainty, the existance of a diety} with athistic inclinations{ buit we admit that it is EXCEEDINGLY improbable that such a diety exists on account of evidence}. thats what i do at times anyway.

Jbill311
Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. If I were to simplify...

1. As far as empirical evidence goes, there is no proof of God's existence; indeed, operationally defined as a nonempirical entity, there can never be proof of God's existence.
This is not good for Theism.

Or as I would rephrase it: Agnosticism is, intellectually, the most honest position.

That is not necessarily true. The Idea of a superior being may fall outside of the realm of empiricism, but once certain attributes are attached to the god it becomes possible to test. The idea that god answers prayers, has facilitated miracles, or interferes at all in the lives of humans can be tested. As a nonempirical entity it remains outside of logical proofs, but when it interacts with the universe it becomes testable.

Mindship
Originally posted by Jbill311
That is not necessarily true. The Idea of a superior being may fall outside of the realm of empiricism, but once certain attributes are attached to the god it becomes possible to test. The idea that god answers prayers, has facilitated miracles, or interferes at all in the lives of humans can be tested. As a nonempirical entity it remains outside of logical proofs, but when it interacts with the universe it becomes testable.
I definitely agree that once attributes are assigned--specifically how they would relate to interaction with the empirical world--that tests can be run. In fact, reliable, empiric-scientific correlation is sorely needed and would be very welcome. However, even here we have to be careful.

First of all, what attributes do we assign? Are we going to give God traits that we know ahead of time can be tested for and indeed will be found? Ie, how do we know what traits to assign which wouldn't automatically guarantee success? For example, if God is an Intelligent Designer, does that mean the organization we see in the world is proof?

Secondly, how do we eliminate other contaminating variables, other factors which could account for the phenomenon? To continue with the above example, how do we know the organization we see in the world isn't due to evolution?

Third: At best, empirical tests can still only hint of what a transempircal entity might be like, just as a circular shadow may be hinting of a sphere, but it may also be hinting of a cylinder or cone. It might indeed offer compelling evidence, but not convincing.

The above aside, this is not to say that "God" is necessarily beyond science, not if we extend the definition of scientific proof to any immediately perceived phenomena, not just empirical. In this manner, scientific method may still prove viable: we can still apply careful observation, honesty of effort and intersubjective agreement to "meditative insight." Once we have this transcendent verification, then we can infer--from those direct, contemplative observations--Godly traits we may wish to test for, traits as they would translate into empirical phenomena.

Jbill311
Originally posted by Mindship

The above aside, this is not to say that "God" is necessarily beyond science, not if we extend the definition of scientific proof to any immediately perceived phenomena, not just empirical. In this manner, scientific method may still prove viable: we can still apply careful observation, honesty of effort and intersubjective agreement to "meditative insight." Once we have this transcendent verification, then we can infer--from those direct, contemplative observations--Godly traits we may wish to test for, traits as they would translate into empirical phenomena.

This was exactly my point. It bothers me that the idea of god resides outside of science. We can investigate the things that suggest a god, and rationally decide whether or not they add up to a deity. I have looked at all the evidence I could find, and the arguments seem to favor atheism, or a least agnosticism with a stronger possibility of no god than of an extant one.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Jbill311
This was exactly my point. It bothers me that the idea of god resides outside of science. We can investigate the things that suggest a god, and rationally decide whether or not they add up to a deity. I have looked at all the evidence I could find, and the arguments seem to favor atheism, or a least agnosticism with a stronger possibility of no god than of an extant one.

Right.

It also depends on the type of God you're speaking of. The Christian God is a testable hypothesis, since He is a deity who regularly intervenes on the Earth and in human affairs. Such interaction would require a physcial presence that defies normal causality. Thus, testable. Not falsifiable, perhaps, but proveable. So far, nothing resembling such evidence has surfaced.

But if we're talking about ANY God, which would include non-intervening forces that created the universe but don't affect it, then it goes beyond science. But in that case, it's clearly not the god of any theistic tradition here on earth, so it makes theism as we understand it just as pointless.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Right.

It also depends on the type of God you're speaking of. The Christian God is a testable hypothesis, since He is a deity who regularly intervenes on the Earth and in human affairs. Such interaction would require a physcial presence that defies normal causality. Thus, testable. Not falsifiable, perhaps, but proveable. So far, nothing resembling such evidence has surfaced.

But if we're talking about ANY God, which would include non-intervening forces that created the universe but don't affect it, then it goes beyond science. But in that case, it's clearly not the god of any theistic tradition here on earth, so it makes theism as we understand it just as pointless. true. if we found out there was a god like that or gods like that i would be satisfied. at least it would make sense why horrible things happen, because they created everything then stepped back

Mindship
Originally posted by Jbill311
This was exactly my point. It bothers me that the idea of god resides outside of science. We can investigate the things that suggest a god, and rationally decide whether or not they add up to a deity. I have looked at all the evidence I could find, and the arguments seem to favor atheism, or a least agnosticism with a stronger possibility of no god than of an extant one.
Indeed. The purely empirical model is very compelling, and taken literally, its database points to No God. For me, lack of empirical evidence--for an essentially transempirical entity--is not convincing. I feel science can take a poke or two at God or consciousness, and should, because of the potential gain.

lord xyz
Religion is blatent lies and is based on fiction. This is reason enough not to believe it, like atheists do...like I do. Agnostics however, do not understand religion is lies, their argument is you can't know the answer. They miss out the fact that the religious argument was made up, and when it comes to science, something made up, is wrong. So, religion is wrong and agnosticism is wrong.

However, if you're talking philisophically, I would take the agnostic argument, by the fact that no one knows everything.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
Religion is blatent lies and is based on fiction. This is reason enough not to believe it, like atheists do...like I do. Agnostics however, do not understand religion is lies, their argument is you can't know the answer. They miss out the fact that the religious argument was made up, and when it comes to science, something made up, is wrong. So, religion is wrong and agnosticism is wrong.

However, if you're talking philisophically, I would take the agnostic argument, by the fact that no one knows everything.

I feel that you have a flawed understanding of Agnosticism. Don't take that as an insult because I have learned a few things while posting the religion forum. You seem to think that agnostics are trying to subscribe to both common theistic ideals while also subscribing to atheistic ideals. This is simply not the case. Their perspective is neither based on common theisms nor atheisms: they don't share the common ideals from either. Theirs is a unique perspective that is ALMOST mutually exclusive to both poles. They hold that there IS a possibility of deity but it is currently impossible to know.

This is some good reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I have already stated that Agnosticism is the most logical choice in another thread. You, indeed, are correct that it is the best philosophical choice as well.

DigiMark007
People seem caught between atheist/agnostic in such matters. I prefer to call myself non-theist, which is probably just as logical as agnosticism because in it you don't believe in a God but don't outright deny the existence of one. It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" (non-theist) and "There is no God," which is traditionally what atheism is associated with. Subtle, but important from a logical standpoint.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DigiMark007
People seem caught between atheist/agnostic in such matters. I prefer to call myself non-theist, which is probably just as logical as agnosticism because in it you don't believe in a God but don't outright deny the existence of one. It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" (non-theist) and "There is no God," which is traditionally what atheism is associated with. Subtle, but important from a logical standpoint.

"I don't believe in God" would be non-<insert the name of the religion to which "God" refers to here>

You can be a theist, atheist, agnostic, apatheistic(thanks to Quiero for informing me about that one), or a nontheist. You may call yourself a nontheist because that is an "ism". Ther's probably some others but I prefer to keep narrowed down to those.

You may, imo, be apatheistic. Search out that religion....you may find that this "label" fits better for what you are looking for.

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel that you have a flawed understanding of Agnosticism. Don't take that as an insult because I have learned a few things while posting the religion forum. You seem to think that agnostics are trying to subscribe to both common theistic ideals while also subscribing to atheistic ideals. This is simply not the case. Their perspective is neither based on common theisms nor atheisms: they don't share the common ideals from either. Theirs is a unique perspective that is ALMOST mutually exclusive to both poles. They hold that there IS a possibility of deity but it is currently impossible to know.

This is some good reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I have already stated that Agnosticism is the most logical choice in another thread. You, indeed, are correct that it is the best philosophical choice as well. Yeah, they believe it is impossible to know. But as I stated, the fact that religion was made up, is evidence enough that it is false (in a scientific context). Therefore, it is possible to know, and agnostics don't realise that.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, they believe it is impossible to know. But as I stated, the fact that religion was made up, is evidence enough that it is false (in a scientific context). Therefore, it is possible to know, and agnostics don't realise that.

You're still missing it.

Agnosticism does not hinge on the idea that religion was made up. In fact, it is completely independent of that thought or ideal. It is what it is in its own right. Hence my saying "mutually exclusive".

If YOU accept that there is a possibility of a deity of sorts, YOU could be considered agnostic.

Tell me something, do you consider atheists "brights"?

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're still missing it.

Agnosticism does not hinge on the idea that religion was made up. In fact, it is completely independent of that thought or ideal. It is what it is in its own right. Hence my saying "mutually exclusive".

If YOU accept that there is a possibility of a deity of sorts, YOU could be considered agnostic.

Tell me something, do you consider atheists "brights"? What do you mean by "hinge"?

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
What do you mean by "hinge"?

As in "not" hinge.

5. to be dependent or contingent on, or as if on, a hinge (usually fol. by on or upon): Everything hinges on his decision.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinge

lord xyz
No.

Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.

You're still getting it wrong.

I don't understand how you could miss it this many times.


"Form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved." Indeed, one could say that agnosticism is a critique of both theism and atheism. One more time.....MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to either. Did you catch that?

You have the set of theism: 0

You have the set of atheism: 1

And then the set of agnosticism: A

A does not = 0 or 1

0 does not = A or 1

1 does not = 0 or A


The idea of agnosticism is NOT related to the origins of theism. (It could be...remotely due to the illogic of theism...but Agnosticism is NOT theism.)

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're still getting it wrong.

I don't understand how you could miss it this many times.


"Form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved." Indeed, one could say that agnosticism is a critique of both theism and atheism. One more time.....MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to either. Did you catch that?

You have the set of theism: 0

You have the set of atheism: 1

And then the set of agnosticism: A

A does not = 0 or 1

0 does not = A or 1

1 does not = 0 or A


The idea of agnosticism is NOT related to the origins of theism. (It could be...remotely due to the illogic of theism...but Agnosticism is NOT theism.) You don't understand what I'm saying. As a result, you're argument has been against a point I haven't made. I understand Agnosticism is not Theism, and that agnosticism believes god can't be proved or disproved, my point is is that it can be disproved, and agnostics don't realise this. For some reason you mistook that as saying agnostics are thesits, or are a type of theist. I never said that.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by dadudemon
"I don't believe in God" would be non-<insert the name of the religion to which "God" refers to here>

You can be a theist, atheist, agnostic, apatheistic(thanks to Quiero for informing me about that one), or a nontheist. You may call yourself a nontheist because that is an "ism". Ther's probably some others but I prefer to keep narrowed down to those.

You may, imo, be apatheistic. Search out that religion....you may find that this "label" fits better for what you are looking for.

Fair enough. I just think that nontheist describes me best, but no one really uses it so I usually have to explain it to people. It's generally easier just to say I'm atheist.

And was that last sentence inviting me to search for a new label? Thanks and all, but I did my searching for a long time and was very thorough about it. If I was forced to choose a religion, I'd probably go with Taoism, whose philosophies and ideas I consider an admirable way to live life...but I can't consider myself any religion and flat-out don't believe in either a God/gods or nearly any paranormal phenomenon which would validate some belief beyond materialism.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
You don't understand what I'm saying. As a result, you're argument has been against a point I haven't made. I understand Agnosticism is not Theism, and that agnosticism believes god can't be proved or disproved, my point is is that it can be disproved, and agnostics don't realise this. For some reason you mistook that as saying agnostics are thesits, or are a type of theist. I never said that.

No. Now you are using a red herring.


Agnosticism CANNOT be disproved. Neither can a belief in Deity or simply not believing in any form of transcendent reality.

Also, your entire argument against Agnosticism has been a straw man. In all fairness, it may not have been intentional on your part and may just simply have been a misunderstanding of Agnosticism.


Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. I just think that nontheist describes me best, but no one really uses it so I usually have to explain it to people. It's generally easier just to say I'm atheist.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And was that last sentence inviting me to search for a new label?

Yes...and no. I figured that you may be interested a new name for what you want to call yourself. I, personally, don't care for the labels unless you define yourself by that specific label.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks and all, but I did my searching for a long time and was very thorough about it.

Good.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If I was forced to choose a religion, I'd probably go with Taoism, whose philosophies and ideas I consider an admirable way to live life...but I can't consider myself any religion and flat-out don't believe in either a God/gods or nearly any paranormal phenomenon which would validate some belief beyond materialism.


Fair enough. Sounds good to me.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes...and no. I figured that you may be interested a new name for what you want to call yourself. I, personally, don't care for the labels unless you define yourself by that specific label.

I dislike them too. But it's impossible to exist without them in casual conversation because there's rarely time to go terribly in-depth. We need 1-2 words that describe us generally so that interested parties have an idea of what we are. Do people stereotype? Absolutely. So it sucks, but it's largely unavoidable.

I always get annoyed with online dating sites (never actually used one yet, but I like taking the personality tests) because some just have "non-religious" after about 6 denominations of Christian to choose from, or they only have agnostic/atheist and don't allow you to clarify yourself. You can check "other" sometimes, but that doesn't really tell the person anything. Would a write-in box with maybe 100 word limit kill them? I'd be irked if I ever actually used one of the sites.

Mindship
<--- Prometheist, short for Prognostic MetaTheist:

"I wanna know, but since there's no proof either way, I believe in believing in a God because I see less benefit to not believing."


renske

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.

You are wrong. Agnostics might very well disbelieve in all Religions of the world and still say it is impossible to know whether a God exists. The concept of God is not solely based in the systematic and dogmatic manifestation of it called "Religion".

Strangelove
Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up. Um wow. That's absolutely wrong.

Atheists simply don't believe that there is a higher power, simple as that.

You don't have to belong to a religion to be a theist.

And agnostics simply believe that such knowledge is unknowable.

Most of these personal decisions are made independent of whether you believe religious doctrine. Once you've decided what you believe, then you apply doctrine.


At least that's the way smart people should do it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong. Agnostics might very well disbelieve in all Religions of the world and still say it is impossible to know whether a God exists. The concept of God is not solely based in the systematic and dogmatic manifestation of it called "Religion".


Originally posted by Strangelove
Um wow. That's absolutely wrong.

Atheists simply don't believe that there is a higher power, simple as that.

You don't have to belong to a religion to be a theist.

And agnostics simply believe that such knowledge is unknowable.

Most of these personal decisions are made independent of whether you believe religious doctrine. Once you've decided what you believe, then you apply doctrine.


At least that's the way smart people should do it.



Stated better than I could have stated...however, I did post links to definitions so I don't know how I could have said it better.

Mindship
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: There is no God.
Agnostic: I don't know.

Anything beyond this methinks is overthink.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mindship
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: There is no God.
Agnostic: I don't know.

Anything beyond this methinks is overthink.

Eh. Theist should probably be subdivided into "I believe there's a God" and "There is a God" (not equivalent statements). Most are the former, while the latter isn't as defensible.

Same with atheist. "I don't believe in God" and "There is no God." I know more of the former for both theists/atheists.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
<--- Prometheist, short for Prognostic MetaTheist:

"...I believe in believing in a God because I see less benefit to not believing."


renske

That really sums me up right there.

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, your entire argument against Agnosticism has been a straw man. In all fairness, it may not have been intentional on your part and may just simply have been a misunderstanding of Agnosticism. No, just a certain type of agnostic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong. Agnostics might very well disbelieve in all Religions of the world and still say it is impossible to know whether a God exists. The concept of God is not solely based in the systematic and dogmatic manifestation of it called "Religion". Yeah, okay. Isn't that synonymous with Atheist though? Besides, I mentioned that I'm talking about terms of science.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Um wow. That's absolutely wrong.

Atheists simply don't believe that there is a higher power, simple as that.

You don't have to belong to a religion to be a theist.

And agnostics simply believe that such knowledge is unknowable.

Most of these personal decisions are made independent of whether you believe religious doctrine. Once you've decided what you believe, then you apply doctrine.


At least that's the way smart people should do it. Yes.

Yes.

Yes, atheists do too.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eh. Theist should probably be subdivided into "I believe there's a God" and "There is a God" (not equivalent statements). Most are the former, while the latter isn't as defensible.

Same with atheist. "I don't believe in God" and "There is no God." I know more of the former for both theists/atheists.

Both agnostics and atheists are skeptics of the god belief, yes? The difference of course is that atheists are sure that there is no evidence, and agnostics said you can't know. Philisophically, agnostics are right, you can't know. Scientifically, there is no evidence. An agnostic who is open to the idea of religion, which has been the agnostic I've refered to throughout the debate is incorrect.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, okay. Isn't that synonymous with Atheist though?

Besides, I mentioned that I'm talking about terms of science.

No, it's very much different from atheism that reject all notion of a creator.

What does "talking about terms of science" in your opinion change about my point?

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eh. Theist should probably be subdivided into "I believe there's a God" and "There is a God" (not equivalent statements).
There is a God does sound like a statement of fact, but in essence it is saying the same thing as I believe there's a God. The difference is, with There is a God, "I believe" is implied (whether the theist believes that or not; many do like to see God as a fact).

DigiMark007
Originally posted by lord xyz
Both agnostics and atheists are skeptics of the god belief, yes? The difference of course is that atheists are sure that there is no evidence, and agnostics said you can't know. Philisophically, agnostics are right, you can't know. Scientifically, there is no evidence. An agnostic who is open to the idea of religion, which has been the agnostic I've refered to throughout the debate is incorrect.

Depends on how you use the term atheist. This statement of yours: atheists are sure that there is no evidence, is false. I'm not sure there is no evidence, and others are the same way. I'm fairly confident there isn't any, but I wouldn't say there's no chance of error (as no one can about anything).

As I see it:
Agnosticism: We can't know, so there may or may not be a god.
Atheism: We can't know, but I believe there isn't a god.

Both begin with the logical statement that "we can't know." Hell, let's take Richard Dawkins. Even he says that his version of atheism is technically agnosticism because we can't be certain of anything (I can't formally cite the quote, but it's from an early chapter in "The God Delusion"wink.

It's my observation that most people believe atheists DENY the existence of God, rather than simply not believing in one. Again, "There is no God" and "I don't believe in God" are not equivalent statements, but both can be considered atheism.

Originally posted by Mindship
There is a God does sound like a statement of fact, but in essence it is saying the same thing as I believe there's a God. The difference is, with There is a God, "I believe" is implied (whether the theist believes that or not; many do like to see God as a fact).

I disagree, but not because "I believe" isn't implied in the statement sometimes....but because a lot of times it isn't implied. I've known people who will say "There is a God" and are actually saying There is a God. Not "I believe..." Same with some atheists.

And how atheism is generally understood by non-atheists (either articles I've read, how the dictionary defines it, or anyone I've ever discussed the matter with in my life) is "There is no God." They believe that that's what I, and other, atheists, are saying.

So I do feel like the distinction is necessary, because the "I believe" may be implied to you and I, but it certainly isn't for everyone.

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So I do feel like the distinction is necessary, because the "I believe" may be implied to you and I, but it certainly isn't for everyone.
Understood. That's why I added, "whether the theist believes that or not; many do like to see God as a fact."

Perhaps "Belief is implicit" might be a better wording than "'I believe' is implied," as the former bypasses the theist's intent.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. That's why I added, "whether the theist believes that or not; many do like to see God as a fact."

Perhaps "Belief is implicit" might be a better wording than "'I believe' is implied," as the former bypasses the theist's POV. The distinction you're making might be better applied to types of theists, rather than types of theism.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a nice alteration of my original idea....theists rather than theism. We're obviously playing semantics somewhat, but I feel like they're important distinctions.

I just see it as necessary because of my personal experiences with it. One of the more common questions I receive after saying I'm an atheist is "How can you say God definitely doesn't exist?" or some permutation on that idea. Some qualify it with the cliche "you can't prove a negative" line as well. Basically, they don't see that "I believe" is implied for most atheists, so I have to spell it out.

It's also why I've taken to calling myself non-theist more often than not. Confusion arises with that word too, but at least they don't start the discussion with erroneous assumptions.

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a nice alteration of my original idea....theists rather than theism. We're obviously playing semantics somewhat, but I feel like they're important distinctions.

I just see it as necessary because of my personal experiences with it.

Again, I understand what you're saying. And I would even agree that in a debate with someone, it definitely helps to know if you're dealing with an "open" theist or a "closed" theist (if I may label your distinction).

In which case, perhaps I should've stated my initial post as (eg):
Theism: Belief that there is a God.

DigiMark007
thumb up

Any more and we'd just be going in circles. Nice discussion though...probably helped me articulate my own views on it a bit.

JesusIsAlive

JesusIsAlive

Shakyamunison
Again? You are missing the point. Energy CANNOT be created.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.